After two days of listening to pundits describe the meeting at the Blair House on Thursday, February 25, I find myself, as one might expect, agreeing with some pundits and disagreeing with others.  What this certainly was not, was a debate reminiscent of the Lincoln Douglas Debates.  In those debates, both sides were well armed.   

I am concerned about the drivel that was presented as a substitute for candid debate concerning the items in the present two pieces of legislation.  This was especially pronounced when Democrats Louise Slaughter and Tom Harkin carried personal stories of reported tragedies that had befallen individuals which they blamed on current healthcare laws.  National legislation cannot be allowed to be based upon individual anecdotes such as the lady who wears her dead sister’s dentures or the farmer whose healthcare insurance costs could cost him his business.  Instead of trying to capitalize upon her constituent’s misfortunate circumstance, might Representative Slaughter have better served her constituent by communicating her access to Medicaid, a federal program for just such persons?  Might Senator Harkin have better served the public by disclosing that the letter he read from a farmer in Iowa was from an individual with a high loss history? 

http://www.examiner.com/x-25060-Fort-Worth-Christianity--Culture-Examiner~y2010m2d27-Obamas-Health-Care-Summit-insurance-remarks-by-Senator-Tom-Harkins-illogical-and-inaccurate

There also was the assumption in Senator Harkin’s comments that the only way to gain control over increasing costs in the medical industry is through government control.  I contend these prices are too high largely because of government control.  This would include the court system, the Congress, the state legislatures and the individual state insurance commissions and commissioners.  Senator Harkin also contended that healthcare is a “right” of all Americans.  It simply cannot be.  A right is God-given and is something we all possess that no one else has to sacrifice anything for us to own.  This legislation demands either that the insurance company, other policy holders, the doctor, the hospital/clinic, the pharmaceutical company, the taxpayer or some other service organization sacrifice to provide that “right” to the individual of need.  As such it cannot be a right because all those people have rights too and government should have no “right” to take property from any citizen and give the results of their labor to somebody else.   

I found it particularly without merit for the President to accuse Eric Cantor of using props when the only prop he had was the actual legislation they were there to discuss.  I also found it to be completely hypocritical to accuse Cantor and other Republicans of using “talking points” when their comments were directed toward the actual legislation they were purportedly there to discuss and the President’s own words were a regurgitation of what we have heard him or other proponents of the legislation say for more than a year.  If the purpose of the discussion was to find areas where they could agree it seems apparent that a discussion of the content of the legislation where they could not hope to agree had merit. 

I listened to Rush Limbaugh on Friday and the item that has run through my mind since that show was his own comment about Tom Harkin of Iowa.  Rush’s comment struck a nerve with me when he bellowed over the top of Senator Harkin as he played back his testimony from that meeting.  Rush’s response to Senator Harkin’s admission that he once sold insurance was intended to parallel the attitude of the Senate majority who consistently attempt to demonize insurance companies as evil.  Rush said, “Senator Harkin.  How many people did you screw as an insurance salesman?”  My immediate thought was, “Not nearly as many as he has screwed as a US Senator.”

I also listened to comments by Paul Krugman, David Gergen, George Stephanopolis and Sean Hannity and I admit surprise to some of their comments.  On Sunday morning Paul Krugman on This Week posited that President Obama had demonstrated that Republicans were obstinate and unwilling to consider improvements to the nation’s healthcare laws.  I found Republicans well reasoned in the statements they directed at the topic of the meeting and if anything, they came prepared to discuss items where they could agree and to identify those areas in the present bill that prevent their support.  There are in fact so many items they cannot support that they repeatedly have recommended that the Congress start over and work together to find a solution.  It was the Democrats that demonstrated an unwillingness to consider anything but the current legislation and who have dug in their heels and are unwilling to discuss anything that would modify or eliminate any item in the present bill. 

David Gergen appeared surprised that the Republicans had done so well.  It was as though the conservative element in the Republican Party had been so ignored in the main stream media that he had himself bought the line that Republicans had no ideas of their own, were stubborn in their opposition to any reform and that they were simply a party of “Just say no.”  I applaud Gergen’s recognition that the Republicans had their best day in years as a result of the President’s invitation because it smacked of something other than the traditional elitism so often found within the ranks of the pundits who live and die within the Beltway.  Stephanopolis appears to have gone so far as to say the event was a draw.  On this comment I must agree with Rush Limbaugh that if Stephanopolis indicated it was a draw then it had to be in his mind a horrible defeat for the President.  The loss of any argument by this administration to a well prepared group of Republicans would be difficult for a partisan like Stephanopolis or others of the traditional media to admit. 

Sean Hannity said many things that appeared to me to all be true.  Senators McCain and Alexander were masterful in their comments.  They were reasoned, they were substantive and their relevance was in sharp contrast to the remarks of Nancy Pelosi who led off for the Democrats and of those of other democrats who came with personal anecdotes intended to draw an emotional response rather than actually deal in the substance of the legislation.  I believe Senator McCain’s call for the elimination of special deals that deny equal protection to all citizens based upon geography or membership in a union was a reasonable request, not a “talking point.”  I believe that Senator Alexander’s request for the President and the Democrats in the room to agree to eliminate the threatened Reconciliation Option was also entirely reasonable in the spirit, as he stated, of true bipartisanship.  He indicated that without such a vow that the current day of discussion had no relevance.  I agree.   Congressman Cantor and Congressman Ryan's demonstrated understanding of the economy and the impact this legislation would have was far stronger than that of the President or anyone else in that room.  The request to start over because of the deeply entrenched philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats that prevent bipartisan support on the present bill was also seemingly a reasoned approach particularly when the Republicans were armed with multiple polls that suggest that Americans overwhelmingly do not want this legislation.  Poll after poll demonstrates that the American public is opposed to this piece of legislation by 65 to 70%.  Once again, the President demonstrated that it was he and the House and Senate leadership that is most obstinate and tragically for them it was within a forum that was intended to demonstrate the opposite to the American public. 

President Obama’s constant interruptions of Republicans to accuse them of using props or spouting talking points reminded me of the late Joe Pyne.  Mr. Pyne had a talk show on which his guests were typically not his intellectual equal but he occasionally had a guest that would surprise him with their intellect and their penchant for debate.  When confronted with someone who was winning the argument, Mr. Pyne would call for a commercial and then change the subject entirely upon his return from the break.  President Obama had no ability on Thursday to call for a commercial so he did the next best thing.  He dismissed the arguments as "talking points" and passed the floor to someone else.  At one point he demonstrated extreme arrogance by reminding Senator McCain that he had won the election and suggested to Senator McCain that he stop campaigning.  He did this in other instances already referenced as well as when Representative Ryan read items from the actual legislation.  President Obama also did this when he and Senator Alexander debated whether according to the CBO premiums would increase for individual policy holders.  Upon investigation it was proven that it was Senator Alexander who had the command of the actual facts.    

Facts, here is an interesting word.  Senator Reid admonished Republicans who requested that the Democrats abandon the Reconciliation Option by telling everyone that Republicans were “not entitled to their own facts.”  Then he went on to make a statement that only someone from another planet could believe, that no one had ever talked about Reconciliation except the Republicans.  In actuality, Democrats have apparently been talking about Reconciliation for almost a year.  Only the other day we all saw Senator Reid himself tell Republicans to stop whining because Republicans had used the option on many occasions in the past.  This is apparently true however Reconciliation has never been used for anything so consequential and was not designed for anything like this current legislation. 

Reconciliation is a Senate Rule that allows for the suspension of another Senate Rule, the rule that calls for a 60% cloture vote to end debate.  It allows the Senate leader to simply call for an up or down vote.  Democrat Senator Byrd wrote the Reconciliation Rule that is identified to be for a narrow set of circumstances related to budget bills where the House and the Senate agree on principle and the only matters that must be resolved relate to actual budget amounts or actual rates.  Using Reconciliation on these budget bills enables a simple majority to pass the modified legislation.   Senator Byrd himself has indicated that the use of Reconciliation on the Healthcare legislation would be “an outrage.”  On Fox News Sunday Senator Kyle of Arizona described what was apparently the one time that Reconciliation was used for something other than a Budget bill and for something that could also be considered substantive new legislation.  The Welfare Reform Bill used Reconciliation apparently as a time-saving shortcut measure.  Knowing that the Senate had 78 of its members prepared to approve the legislation, Reconciliation enabled the Senate to proceed with a single vote.  Cloture was not an issue.  For persons like myself who are concerned with process within the Senate, my response would be that in retrospect this should not have been done as it apparently created a precedent in the mind of a tyrannical majority that would wield this club to ram through legislation that otherwise could never pass.    This legislation is not a budget bill and there are many principles in the House version of the legislation that differ from the Senate version.  Therefore, according to the Senate’s rules, Reconciliation is not a valid option to employ.  Still, it is threatened that the Democrats will declare a square block to be a round ball if necessary to force forward this legislation that more than 70% of the public declare they want changed or eliminated in its entirety. 

In final evaluation it appeared to me that President Obama failed miserably in his attempt to photo-op a discussion between Democrats and Republicans on the matter of Healthcare.  It was clearly a surprise to him to find out that his adversaries were at the top of their game and willing to confront him.  President Obama used his rhetoric to his advantage over the course of his presidential campaign and sometimes to his advantage in the first year of his administration.  But his use of his oratorical strength reminds me of a statement that I believe I read in a book by Mark McCormack in which he cautioned the sales person that once the client has said he is sold, to stop talking.  I believe that the inexperience of this President and his total reliance upon his spoken word to advance his own self-image has placed him within the ranks of those that this author was cautioning by this advice.  The more that President Obama speaks the more people begin to hear or think of something they hadn’t thought about before and that make them want to take another look.  He has oversold his position and people that were once sold by his charm and his charisma are taking that second look.  More to the point a good second look needs to be taken.    

At the present time no one in this country whether the richest or the poorest man or woman can be denied medical treatment at a hospital emergency room.  Insurance is a business. Consumers must be free to shop for and purchase insurance based upon their own will and agree to their own contracts with insurance companies.  The way costs are reduced is not through legislation but through competition.  If an insurance company is gouging its customers it won’t have customers for long because another insurance company will write a competitive policy that will attract those customers.  To increase competition Republicans say, drop the artificial barriers that exist between states that prevent an individual in California from purchasing a policy that is perfect for his/her needs but that only can be sold in Nebraska.  We have gone through attempts to legislatively control prices and costs in the past and they didn’t work.  Nixon instituted price controls and Carter instituted wage controls in the 1970’s.  Carter fixed the amounts of total wage increases a company could offer and caused good people to leave good jobs and pursue others because it was the only way one could advance in a government controlled economy.  These and other policies of the Carter Administration led to double digit inflation rates, double digit interest rates and high unemployment.  These measures put us in a deep recession and resulted in an economy that truly was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  President Obama appears intent on repeating the mistakes of the Carter Administration in what is a misguided belief that government can legislatively determine economic outcomes despite the demonstrated results of such policy in the US, Europe, China, North Korea and the former Soviet Union.